Author Topic: Do RAW files sell? (Read 8542 times)

davey_rocket · « **on:** October 06, 2008, 15:42 »

Hi,
I'm a relative newbie and just noticed that RAW file sells for 12 credits. I'm wondering if it's worth it to upload RAWs to all of my files or, seeing as I have minimal time for stock, should I just go out and take pictures instead. Any opinions?

madelaide · « **Reply #1 on:** October 06, 2008, 16:08 »

I never uplaoded RAW files (in fact I haven't shot RAW for microstock yet), but be aware that RAW files are also available for subscribers, what I find an indecent deal.

Well, I hate subscriptions altogether, so....

Regards,
Adelaide

ingesche · « **Reply #2 on:** October 06, 2008, 16:10 »

Hi,

I'm a still pretty new to this too, but I don't think I would ever want to sell my RAW files. If someone decides to download your photo, and then uploads it somewhere else, trying to pass it off as their own, you're going to have difficult time proving you took the original image. If you are the only person who has the RAW file, you might at least have something to prove you are the person who took the photo. At least that is the way I look at it, and I know there are people who have been having problems with others stealing their work.

Inge

Bateleur · « **Reply #3 on:** October 06, 2008, 16:16 »

If you were still taking photographs with film, would you sell the negatives?

I know it's not exactly the same (negatives are one-off, digital files can be copied easily and precisely).

But it's close enough. That's what you'd be doing if you sell your RAW.

stormchaser · « **Reply #4 on:** October 06, 2008, 16:29 »

RAW files are your best proof of file ownership if you do not use channels to go through a registration process.

I have sold raw files on a few occasions through my own private licensed stock which is rights managed and individually contracted to qualified firms with appropriate compensation. Would never post raw to micro especially if the shot has some longevity. Just too many thieves, and the 12 credits just not worth it.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #5 on:** October 06, 2008, 17:57 »

I wouldn't even consider uploading any of mine for all of the above reasons.

davey_rocket · « **Reply #6 on:** October 06, 2008, 18:47 »

Wow!

OK, I'm convinced, thanks for the responses. I didn't even think about the ownership rights coming into play with this. I'm glad I posted

basti · « **Reply #7 on:** October 07, 2008, 02:06 »

There is also two other problems not mentioned: RAW is simply raw and skilled graphic designer can do anything he likes with it. He can do so extensive tweaks you will not recognize original file and sell it as his/her own. And of course he/she is partially right becouse of the extensive graphic work on it, anyway arguing about ownership (especially abroad) could be a big problem. The second: designer can tweak it in very bad way and then publish it as your picture - you will not be glad about that for sure.

Microstock pays absolutely insane low even for JPEGs and they dealing with photographers is well known - I will never upload any RAW on microstock. My JPEGs are usually accurately post-processed the way I like them and so the buyer has no much space to tweak it.

Achilles · « **Reply #8 on:** October 07, 2008, 02:07 »

"Selling your negatives" is the worst reason ever for not uploading RAWs. Film negatives can be duplicated, does it mean the original photographer can't prove he's the author? Or sent to a stock agency,which might lose them. Is he no longer the author? And what if you shoot JPG? You can't prove you're the author?

This is not a suggestion to upload RAWs, that's really your choice. It depends from a contributor to the other. I don't do it, as I simply don't have the time to shoot and upload RAW. But I truly regret I don't have it for my popular files. A level 5, 14 credits file in RAW, would be 28 credits, higher than a U-EL. Even the regular level 1 would sell it for 12 credits.

People who sell RAW can increase their RPD a lot. Even if some get downloaded via subscription, average RPD is still much higher. And many people who download RAW via subscription, download the JPG too.

sam100 · « **Reply #9 on:** October 07, 2008, 04:08 »

Quote from: Achilles on October 07, 2008, 02:07

"Selling your negatives" is the worst reason ever for not uploading RAWs. Film negatives can be duplicated, does it mean the original photographer can't prove he's the author? Or sent to a stock agency,which might lose them. Is he no longer the author? And what if you shoot JPG? You can't prove you're the author?

This is not a suggestion to upload RAWs, that's really your choice. It depends from a contributor to the other. I don't do it, as I simply don't have the time to shoot and upload RAW. But I truly regret I don't have it for my popular files. A level 5, 14 credits file in RAW, would be 28 credits, higher than a U-EL. Even the regular level 1 would sell it for 12 credits.

People who sell RAW can increase their RPD a lot. Even if some get downloaded via subscription, average RPD is still much higher. And many people who download RAW via subscription, download the JPG too.

I wouldn't have a problem uploading a 16 bit tiff file of course for a higher return in earnings... but the raw stays with me.

Patrick H.

rene · « **Reply #10 on:** October 07, 2008, 04:55 »

Quote from: stormchaser on October 06, 2008, 16:29

RAW files are your best proof of file ownership if you do not use channels to go through a registration process.

I have sold raw files on a few occasions through my own private licensed stock which is rights managed and individually contracted to qualified firms with appropriate compensation. Would never post raw to micro especially if the shot has some longevity. Just too many thieves, and the 12 credits just not worth it.

Agree.
Another thing, I downsize all my images for DT because I hate to get $0.35 for XXL file. With raw, a customer can buy highest resolution and quality (raw is always superior to jpg) for subscription.

rene · « **Reply #11 on:** October 07, 2008, 05:00 »

Quote from: Achilles on October 07, 2008, 02:07

"Selling your negatives" is the worst reason ever for not uploading RAWs. Film negatives can be duplicated, does it mean the original photographer can't prove he's the author? Or sent to a stock agency,which might lose them. Is he no longer the author? And what if you shoot JPG? You can't prove you're the author?

Quality of original slide and negative is superior to duplicated ones. You can prove that you have original.

Phil · « **Reply #12 on:** October 07, 2008, 05:00 »

I know it is about total $ on total portfolio but IMO none of the micros pay anywhere near enough to be dealing with raw files and personally find it distasteful? (maybe not right word) to be asked. just my opinion

Pixart · « **Reply #13 on:** October 07, 2008, 08:32 »

A level 5, 14 credits file in RAW, would be 28 credits, higher than a U-EL. Even the regular level 1 would sell it for 12 credits.

Sounds like a fair exchange except for the fact that it will still sell for 35 cents as a sub.

madelaide · « **Reply #14 on:** October 07, 2008, 16:14 »

I believe all of us shoot more images than we have online, so the unused ones would be a proof of copyright ownership should this be needed.

I don't know if I would have a problem selling RAW files at higher prices, as with vectors. But definitely NOT at subs prices.

Regards,
Adelaide

dbajurin · « **Reply #15 on:** October 07, 2008, 16:44 »

In fact you don't need to sell your raw files with this option. It is not even idea to do that. Main purpose of this option is for you to create DNG format from your files and upload them instead of raw. In that case you don't have to worry about your rights and buyer will still get 16it color image.
They put all raw formats because not everyone know hot to produce DNG format.
Main problem is who need 16bit color image. In real world of designers almost nobody will pay extra for 16bit.
Dario

Nemo1024 · « **Reply #16 on:** October 15, 2008, 09:31 »

I just had my first RAW sale bringing me a whopping $5

GeoPappas · « **Reply #17 on:** October 15, 2008, 10:53 »

I agree with the consensus of this thread and would never upload a RAW file to any of the sites.

hali · « **Reply #18 on:** October 15, 2008, 11:48 »

Quote from: rene on October 07, 2008, 05:00

Quality of original slide and negative is superior to duplicated ones. You can prove that you have original.

agree, having worked in a lab, i can tell a dupe from an original.

but going back to the real topic: why give away the RAW for peanuts.
as many here mentioned, the word "SUBS" is enough for me to submit only JPG.
i don't even submit the original size EVEN if they are excellent without downsizing.
i still prefer to keep the original size for myself, as we all know,
potential for money on images is there... after micro stock!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Do RAW files sell? (Read 8542 times)

davey_rocket

madelaide

ingesche

Bateleur

stormchaser

RacePhoto

davey_rocket

basti

Achilles

sam100

rene

rene

Phil

Pixart

madelaide

dbajurin

Nemo1024

GeoPappas

hali

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors